In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor
7 N.E.3d 1000
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother (R.J.) voluntarily left infant B.C.H. with maternal grandparents (T.H. & C.H.) who cared for the child from 5 days old until the child was about 2 years and 3 months; grandparents provided primary caregiving and financial support during that period.
- Mother later married Stepfather; Mother and Stepfather filed a petition for Stepfather to adopt B.C.H.; grandparents were aware of the petition but did not receive legal notice nor gave written consent.
- The superior court entered a decree of adoption in August 2011; Mother and Stepfather took physical custody shortly thereafter.
- Grandparents sought de facto custodian status in juvenile court; the juvenile court later adjudicated them de facto custodians and ordered custody proceedings (still pending at time of appeal).
- Grandparents filed Trial Rule 60(B) and Trial Rule 59 motions seeking to set aside the adoption on grounds that (a) as de facto custodians they had "lawful custody" requiring consent and notice under the adoption statutes, and (b) they were not given required notice; the trial court denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “lawful custody” in I.C. §31-19-9-1(a)(3) includes de facto (non–court-ordered) custodians | Grandparents: “lawful custody” includes de facto custodians who had primary caregiving and thus consent/notice required | Mother/Stepfather: “lawful custody” means legal (court-ordered) custody; de facto status doesn’t trigger consent/notice | The court held “lawful custody” is equivalent to “legal custody” (court-ordered), not automatically de facto custody |
| Whether a court adjudication of de facto custodianship confers legal custody for adoption-consent purposes | Grandparents: juvenile court’s de facto custodian finding made them lawful custodians during adoption proceedings | Mother/Stepfather: de facto status is a factor in custody proceedings but does not itself create legal custody absent an award of custody | The court held de facto custodianship—even if adjudicated—does not equal legal custody unless the court awards custody; therefore consent was not required |
| Whether failure to give grandparents notice voided the adoption | Grandparents: absent notice to lawful custodians, adoption decree is voidable | Mother/Stepfather: notice statute requires notice only to persons whose consent is required (i.e., lawful/legal custodians) | Held that grandparents were not persons entitled to notice under statute, so lack of notice did not void adoption |
| Whether grandparents’ post-decree motions (T.R. 60(B), T.R.59) were timely / gave them standing to contest adoption | Grandparents: late-filed 60(B)/59 motions should be considered because their rights were violated | Mother/Stepfather: grandparents lacked standing (not entitled to notice) and T.R.59 motion was untimely (filed >30 days) | Court affirmed denial: no standing to contest under I.C. §31-19-10-1(a) and motion to correct error untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Paternity of P.S.S., 934 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2010) (standard of review for Trial Rule 60(B) relief and abuse-of-discretion principles)
- In re S.H., 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent principles)
- Matter of Paternity of Baby Girl, 661 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (adoption statutes derogate from common law and are strictly construed)
- Taylor v. White, 520 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (consent required where party had custody by court order)
- In re Matter of the Adoption of L.C.E., 940 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (consent required when custodian had custody pursuant to a court order)
- Leonard v. Honisfager, 88 N.E. 91 (Ind. App. 1909) (historical common-law reluctance to require guardian consent to adoption)